Rattler v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
CLYDE LACY RATTLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 11-729 (EGS)
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the Court on defendant Secretary of
Health and Human Services’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff,
proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the Secretary of
Health and Human Services on April 15, 2011. In the complaint,
plaintiff alleges that he filed a claim for Social Security
benefits in 1983, which was denied, and that he is entitled to
such benefits because of his mental and physical impairments.
See Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, 8. He requests that the Court award him “a
check for the amount of an unlimited sum of money[,] supernatural
power[,] the right . . . to do as he wish[es] and the right . . .
to be awarded benefits on this claim in this case as many times
as [he] wish[es].” Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff asserts that he is
entitled to this relief because the Secretary of Health and Human
Services breached “an express or implied term of contract.” Id.
¶¶ 1, 9. In a motion for additional relief filed with the Court
on August 18, 2011, and apparently based on the same claim
articulated in the complaint, plaintiff additionally seeks an
order from the Court “compel[l]ing the human race to go naked for
eternity[.]” Mot. Additional Relief at 1.
The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are virtually
identical to the allegations that were made by plaintiff in
Rattler v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 10-1484
(D.D.C. filed Aug. 31, 2010). Plaintiff’s complaint in that
action was dismissed for being frivolous, see Rattler v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 736 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.
2010), and the decision was affirmed on appeal, see 405 F. App’x
504 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Because plaintiff’s claim has been
litigated previously, res judicata prevents plaintiff from re-
litigating the same claim in the instant action. See Hardison v.
Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“The appeal
process is available to correct error; subsequent litigation is
not.”).
Moreover, there is no legal basis under the Social Security
Act for a person who has been denied benefits to sue the Social
Security Administration for breach of an express or implied
contract. The sole basis for challenging a denial of benefits is
set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The punitive and compensatory
damages that plaintiff seeks also are not available under the
Social Security Act. See Def.’s Mot. Dismiss at 3 (citing 42
2
U.S.C. §§ 401-434); Talanker v. Barnhart, 487 F. Supp. 2d 149,
160 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (“[T]here is no legal basis under the
Constitution or the Social Security Act to grant plaintiff
punitive or compensatory damages.” (citing Schweiker v. Chilicky,
487 U.S. 412, 424-29 (1988))).
Although this Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro
se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those
applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Brown v. District of Columbia,
514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court finds that
plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and
that there is no legal basis for plaintiff’s claim.
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. In
addition, the motion for additional relief is DENIED. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SIGNED: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Court Judge
August 30, 2011
3